by
“Bonaventure’s
metaphysics of Christ the center, according to Hayes, intended to correct that
which had been inherited from the
Greek philosophers. ….
Bonaventure’s deep reflection on the prologue
of John’s Gospel
allowed him to see the metaphysical and epistemological implications of the
Word, incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.
The Word is not only
the Father’s self-expressiveness but it is the
relation of God to
creation, humanity and the Scriptures”.
Ilia Delio, O.S.F.
Introduction
My hopeful quest
in various of my philosophico-historical articles, to re-discover the origins
of human philosophy, or wisdom (σοφία), has led me to the conclusion that the
science long pre-dated the pagan Greeks, and that some of the most famous
ancient names (founding fathers) in the history of so-called ‘(Ionian) Greek’
philosophy were non-historical (biblical) characters.
Then, in my
article:
Philosophy of Jesus Christ
https://www.academia.edu/23184005/Philosophy_of_Jesus_Christ
restoring Christian philosophy
to its biblical roots, with Jesus Christ, Wisdom Incarnate, as the focal point,
I quoted
Father Anthony Zimmerman on the subject:
The
Philosophy of Jesus Christ - The
Fathers of the Church rightly recognised the profound influence of Hebrew
wisdom, the Bible, upon the Greco-Roman world. As “Salvation is of the Jews”,
so is Wisdom. “Jesus appealed to God’s previous revelation in the Hebrew
Scriptures (Matt. 5:17-19; John 10:31) and issued authoritative revelations of
His own as God Incarnate”.
….
Jesus reasoned carefully about the things that matter most - a handy
definition of philosophy. His teachings, in fact, cover the basic topics of
philosophy. “As an apologist for God’s truth, He defended the truth of the
Hebrew Scriptures as well as His own teachings and actions”.
And, as well explained at:
The Bible is one book telling one story that
culminates in One Person: Jesus Christ. The discipline of Biblical Theology
helps us see the overarching story of the Bible along with how each piece fits
into the whole and testifies of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament prepares
the way for and points to Christ, while the New Testament reveals and explains
who He is. The Old Testament displays a “shadow” of Christ whom we experience
in the New Testament (see Colossians 2:16-17).
Obviously
Semitic-Hebrew wisdom is not going to be expressed, or structured, in the same
way as is the Greek philosophy of which we are far more familiar.
But,
that all of the same basic elements are to be found in Hebrew philosophy is
apparent from this perceptive article by Douglas
Groothuis, revealing the metaphysical and rhetorical brilliance of Jesus Christ:
http://www.equip.org/articles/jesus-philosopher-and-apologist/
Jesus: Philosopher and Apologist
This
article first appeared in the Christian
Research Journal, volume 25, number 2 (2002). For further
information or to subscribe to the Christian
Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
Contrary
to the views of critics, Jesus Christ was a brilliant thinker, who used logical
arguments to refute His critics and establish the truth of His views. When
Jesus praised the faith of children, He was encouraging humility as a virtue,
not irrational religious trust or a blind leap of faith in the dark. Jesus
deftly employed a variety of reasoning strategies in His debates on various
topics. These include escaping the horns of a dilemma, a fortiori arguments, appeals
to evidence, and reductio ad
absurdum arguments. Jesus’ use of persuasive arguments demonstrates
that He was both a philosopher and an apologist who rationally defended His
worldview in discussions with some of the best thinkers of His day.
This
intellectual approach does not detract from His divine authority but enhances
it. Jesus’ high estimation of rationality and His own application of arguments
indicates that Christianity is not an anti-intellectual faith. Followers of
Jesus today, therefore, should emulate His intellectual zeal, using the same
kinds or arguments He Himself used. Jesus’ argumentative strategies have
applications to four contemporary debates: the relationship between God and
morality, the reliability of the New Testament, the resurrection of Jesus, and
ethical relativism.
WAS JESUS
A PHILOSOPHER AND APOLOGIST?
I had to
face the question of whether Jesus was a philosopher and apologist head-on when
I was asked to write a book on Jesus for the Wadsworth Philosophers Series. I
already knew that Jesus articulated a developed worldview and reasoned
brilliantly with His opponents. As I studied the subject carefully, however, I
came to appreciate Jesus, the philosopher, more than ever. When Jesus defended
the crucial claims of Christianity — He was its founder, after all — He was
engaging in apologetics, often with the best minds of first-century Judaism.
Some
Christians may be reluctant to label Jesus as a philosopher or apologist
because they worry that such a reference may demean the Lord of the universe.
One well-known Christian philosopher told me that emphasizing Jesus’ reasoning
abilities could take away from Jesus as a revelator, a source of supernatural
knowledge.
I respect
his concern but disagree for the following reasons.
Jesus was
the incarnation of the Logos — whom theologians call the second person of the
Trinity. As Christian philosopher and theologian Carl Henry and others have
emphasized, the apostle John used the term logos
to personalize the Greek view of the wisdom, logic, and rationality of the
universe. …. Our English translations say, “In the beginning was the Word
[Logos]” (John 1:1). …. Jesus embodies the rational communication (Word) of
God’s truth. He is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). We should expect that
God Incarnate would be a wise and reasonable person, however much He may cut
against the grain of human presumption, pride, and prevarication. Jesus,
moreover, was both divine and human. As a human, Jesus reasoned with other
human beings. He did not run from a good argument on theology or ethics but
engaged His hearers brilliantly.
Jesus was
not a philosopher in the sense of trying to build a philosophical system from
the finite human mind. He appealed to God’s previous revelation in the Hebrew
Scriptures (Matt. 5:17–19; John 10:31) and issued authoritative revelations of
His own as God Incarnate. On the other hand, Jesus reasoned carefully about the
things that matter most — a handy definition of philosophy. His teachings, in
fact, cover the basic topics of philosophy. …. As an apologist for God’s truth,
He defended the truth of the Hebrew Scriptures as well as His own teachings and
actions.
When we
inspect Jesus’ mind in action in several familiar stories from the Gospels, we
see that His thinking was sharp, clear, and cogent.
Not only
should we believe what He taught because He is our divine Master, but through
hard work, prayer, and reliance on the Holy Spirit, we should also strive to
emulate His intellectual virtues because we are called to walk as He walked (1
John 2:6).
Presenting
Jesus as a worthy thinker can be a powerful apologetic tool to unbelievers who
wrongly assume that Christian belief is a matter of blind faith or irrational
belief. If the founder of Christianity is a great thinker, His followers should
never demean the human mind (Matt. 22:37–39; Rom. 12:1–2). In addition, Jesus’
strategies in argument can serve as a model for our own apologetic defense of
the truth and rationality of Christianity, which I will discuss.
DID JESUS
DEMEAN RATIONALITY?
Jesus
engaged in extensive disputes, some quite heated, mostly with the Jewish
intellectual leaders of His day. He did not hesitate to call into account
popular opinion if it was wrong. He spoke often and passionately about the
value of truth and the dangers of error, and He articulated arguments to
support truth and oppose error. ….
Jesus’ use
of logic had a particular flavor to it, notes philosopher Dallas Willard:
Jesus’ aim
in utilizing logic is not to win battles, but to achieve understanding or
insight in his hearers …. He presents matters in such a way that those who wish
to know can find their way to, can come to, the appropriate conclusion as
something they have discovered — whether or not it is something they
particularly care for. ….
Willard
also argues that a concern for logic requires not only certain intellectual
skills but also certain character commitments regarding the importance of logic
and the value of truth in one’s life.
A
thoughtful person will esteem logic and argument through focused concentration,
reasoned dialogue, and a willingness to follow the truth wherever it may lead.
This mental orientation places demands on the moral life. Besides resolution,
tenacity, and courage, one must shun hypocrisy (defending oneself against facts
and logic for ulterior motives) and superficiality (adopting opinions with a
glib disregard for their logical support). Willard takes Jesus to be the
supreme model, as does Christian philosopher James Sire. ….
Atheist
philosopher Michael Martin, in contrast, alleges that the Jesus of the Gospels
(the reliability of which he disputes) “does not exemplify important
intellectual virtues. Both his words and his actions seem to indicate that he
does not value reason and learning.” Jesus based “his entire ministry on
faith.” …. Martin interprets Jesus’ statement about the need to become like
children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3) as praising uncritical
belief.
Martin
also charges that when Jesus gave any reason to accept His teaching, it was
either that the kingdom was at hand or that those who believed would go to
heaven but those who did not believe would go to hell; supposedly, “no rational
justification was ever given for these claims.” …. According to Martin, for
Jesus, unreasoning faith was good; rational demonstration and criticism were
wrong.
These
charges against the claim that Jesus was a philosopher who valued reasoning and
held a well-developed worldview are incriminating. The same Jesus who valued
children, however, also said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your mind”
(Matt. 22:37; emphasis added).
Jesus
praised children for the same reasons that we customarily praise them. We don’t
view children as models because they are irrational or immature, but because
they are innocent and wholehearted in their love, devotion, and enthusiasm for
life. Children are also esteemed because they can be sincerely humble, having
not learned the pretensions of the adult world.
The story
in Matthew 18 has just this favorable view of children in mind. Jesus is asked
by His disciples, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” After calling
a child and having him stand among them, Jesus replies:
I tell you
the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never
enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child
is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child
like this in my name welcomes me. (Matt. 18:3–5)
The
meaning of “become like little children” is not “become uncritical and
unthinking” (as Martin claims), but instead “become humble.” Jesus spoke much
of humility, as do the Hebrew Scriptures. He never associated humility with
stupidity, ignorance, or gullibility. …. Jesus did thank God for revealing the
Gospel to the humble and not to the supposedly wise and understanding. This,
however, does not imply that intelligence is a detriment to believing Jesus’
message but that many of the religious leaders of the day could not grasp it,
largely because it challenged their intellectual pride (see Matt. 11:25–26).
Martin
also charges that the only reasons Jesus gave to support His teaching are that
the kingdom of God is at hand and that those who fail to believe will fail to
receive the heavenly benefits accorded to those with faith. …. Is this true?
First,
Jesus often spoke about the kingdom of God while using it as a justification
for some of His teaching and preaching (Matt. 4:17). Jesus was admonishing
people to reorient their lives spiritually and morally because God was breaking
into history in an unparalleled and dramatic fashion. This is not necessarily
an irrational or unfounded claim if (1) God was acting in this manner in Jesus’
day and (2) one can find evidence for the emergence of the kingdom, chiefly
through the actions of Jesus himself.
The
Gospels present the kingdom as uniquely present in the teaching and actions of
Jesus who Himself claimed that “if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God,
then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt. 12:28).
Since His
audience saw Him driving out demons with singular authority, Jesus was giving
them good reason to believe His claims. He was not merely making assertions or
ungrounded threats while expecting compliance in a childish or cowardly way.
Second,
Jesus’ use of the concept of God’s judgment or reward did not supercede or
replace His use of arguments. His normal argument form was not the following:
“If you believe what I say, you will be rewarded. If you don’t believe what I
say, you will lose that reward. Therefore, believe what I say.” When Jesus
issued warnings and made promises relating one’s conduct in this life to the
afterlife (see John 3:16–18), He spoke more as a prophet than a philosopher.
Whether
Jesus’ words in this matter are trustworthy depends on His moral and spiritual
authority, not on His specific arguments at every point. If we have reason to
deem Him authoritative (as we do), however, we may rationally believe these
pronouncements, just as we believe various other authorities whom we deem
trustworthy on the basis of their credentials and track record. ….
ESCAPING
THE HORNS OF A DILEMMA
We need to
consult the Gospels to determine whether or not Jesus prized well-developed
critical thinking. Several examples illustrate Jesus’ ability to escape from
the horns of a dilemma when challenged. We will look at one. ….
Matthew
recorded a tricky situation for Jesus. The Sadducees had tried to corner Jesus
on a question about the afterlife. Unlike the Pharisees, they did not believe
in life after death, nor in angels or spirits (although they were theists), and
they granted special authority to only the first five books of the Hebrew
Bible. The Sadducees reminded Jesus of Moses’ command “that if a man dies
without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for
him.” Then they proposed a scenario in which the same woman is progressively
married to and widowed by seven brothers, none of whom sire any children by
her.
The woman
subsequently dies. “Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of
the seven, since all of them were married to her?” they asked Jesus pointedly
(Matt. 22:23–28).
Their
argument is quite clever. The Sadducees know that Jesus revered the law of
Moses, as they did. They also knew that Jesus, unlike themselves, taught that
there will be a resurrection of the dead. They thought that these two beliefs
are logically at odds with each other; they cannot both be true. The woman
cannot be married to all seven at the resurrection (Mosaic law did not allow
for many husbands), nor is there any reason why she should be married to any
one out of the seven (thus honoring monogamy). They figured, therefore, that
Jesus must either stand against Moses or deny the afterlife in order to remain
free from contradiction. They were presenting this scenario as a logical
dilemma: either A (Moses’ authority) or B (the afterlife).
Martin and
others have asserted that Jesus praised uncritical faith.
…. If
these charges were correct, one might expect Jesus (1) to dodge the question
with a pious and unrelated utterance, (2) to threaten hell for those who dare
question his authority, or (3) simply to accept both logically incompatible
propositions with no hesitation or shame. Instead, Jesus forthrightly said the
Sadducees were in error because they failed to know the Scripture and the power
of God:
At the
resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be
like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead — have you
not read what God said to you, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob”? He is not the God of the dead but of the living. (Matt.
22:30–32)
Jesus’
response has an astuteness that may not be immediately obvious.
First, He
challenged their assumption that belief in the resurrection means that one is
committed to believing that all of our premortem institutions will be retained
in the postmortem, resurrected world. None of the Hebrew Scriptures teaches
this, and Jesus did not believe it. The dilemma thus dissolves. It is a false
dilemma because Jesus stated a third option: There is no married state at the
resurrection.
Second, as
part of His response to their logical trap, Jesus compared the resurrected
state of men and women to that of the angels, thus challenging the Sadducees’
disbelief in angels. (Although the Sadducees did not believe in angels, they
knew that their fellow Jews, who did believe in angels, thought that angels did
not marry or procreate.)
Third,
Jesus cited a text from the Sadducees’ own esteemed Scriptures (Exod. 3:6),
where God declared to Moses from the burning bush that He is the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus could have cited a variety of texts from
writings outside the first five books of the Bible to support the resurrection,
such as the prophets (Dan. 12:2) or Job (19:25–27), but instead He deftly
argued from their own trusted sources, which He also endorsed (Matt. 5:17–20;
John 10:35).
Fourth,
Jesus capitalized on the verb tense of the verse He quoted. God is (present tense) the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom had already died at the time God had
uttered this statement to Moses. God did not cease to be their God at their
earthly demise. God did not say, “I was their God” (past tense). God is the God
of the living, which includes even the “dead” patriarchs. Matthew added, “When
the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching,” for Jesus had
“silenced the Sadducees” (Matt. 22:33–34).
The skill
of logically escaping the horns of a dilemma is applicable to many apologetic
challenges.
Consider
one of them; philosophers often argue that making God the source of morality
results in a hopeless dilemma. If morality is based on God’s will, they claim,
God could will anything — including murder, rape, and blasphemy — and it would
be good. This view is absurd. If, on the other hand, we make moral standards
separate from God’s will, then God loses His moral supremacy because God ends
up “under” these impersonal, objective, and absolute moral standards.
The
dilemma, then, is this: Either (A) morality is arbitrary or (B) God is not
supreme. Since both are unacceptable to Christianity, Christianity is refuted.
One can
escape the horns of this dilemma by showing that it is a false dilemma.
The source
of morality is not God’s will separated from God’s eternally perfect character;
rather, divine commands issue from God’s intrinsic being. Since God’s character
is unchangingly good, God cannot alter moral standards because He cannot deny
Himself (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). Furthermore, since God is the Creator of the
world and of humans, God knows what is best for humans to flourish. His
instructions for us are for our blessing as well as God’s own glory (Matt.
5:1-16; Col. 3:17). …. The dilemma dissolves.
A FORTIORI
ARGUMENTS
Jesus was
fond of what are called a
fortiori (Latin: “from the stronger”) arguments, which often appear
in pithy but persuasive forms in the Gospels. ….
We use
them often in everyday arguments. These arguments have the following form:
1. The
truth of idea A is accepted.
2. Support
for the truth of idea B (which is relevantly similar to idea A) is even
stronger than that of idea A.
3.
Therefore, if the truth of idea A must be accepted, then so must the truth of
idea B be accepted.
Consider
Jesus’ argument against the Pharisees concerning the rightness of His
performing a healing miracle on the Sabbath:
I did one
miracle [on the Sabbath], and you are all astonished. Yet, because Moses gave
you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the
patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be
circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are
you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by
mere appearances, and make a right judgment. (John 7:21–24)
Jesus’
argument can be laid out simply:
1. The
Pharisees endorse circumcision, even when it is done on the Sabbath, the day of
rest from work. (Circumcision was performed eight days after the birth of a
male, which sometimes fell on the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath.) This
does not violate the Sabbath laws, because it is an act of goodness.
2. Healing
the whole person is even more important and beneficial than circumcision, which
affects only one aspect of the male.
3.
Therefore, if circumcision on the Sabbath is not a violation of the Sabbath,
neither is Jesus’ healing of a person on the Sabbath.
Jesus’
concluding comment, “Stop judging by appearances, and make a right judgment,”
was a rebuke to their illogical inconsistency while applying their own moral
and religious principles.
Jesus
argued in a similar form in several other conversations regarding the meaning
of the Sabbath. After He healed a crippled woman on the Sabbath, the synagogue
ruler became indignant and said, “There are six days for work. So come and be
healed on those days, not on the Sabbath!” Jesus reminded him that one may
lawfully untie one’s ox or donkey on the Sabbath and lead it to water. “Then
should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for
eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”
Jesus’ argument looks like this:
1. The
Jews lawfully release animals from their confinement on the Sabbath out of
concern for the animals’ well-being.
2. A
woman’s well-being (deliverance from a chronic, debilitating illness) is far
more important than watering an animal.
3.
Therefore, if watering an animal on the Sabbath is not a Sabbath violation,
then Jesus’ healing of the woman on the Sabbath is not a violation of the
Sabbath.
Luke
recorded that when Jesus “said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the
people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing” (Luke 13:17,
see 13:10–17).
….
JESUS’
APPEAL TO EVIDENCE IN ARGUMENT
Despite
the frequent portrayal of Jesus as a mystical figure who called people to adopt
an uncritical faith, He frequently appealed to evidence to confirm His claims.
John the Baptist, who was languishing in prison after challenging Herod, sent
messengers to ask Jesus the question: “Are you the one who was to come, or
should we expect someone else?” (Matt. 11:3).
This may
seem an odd question from a man the Gospels present as the prophetic forerunner
of Jesus and as the one who had proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah. Jesus,
however, did not rebuke John’s question. He did not say, “You must have faith;
suppress your doubts.” Nor did He scold, “If you don’t believe, you’ll go to
hell and miss heaven.” Instead, Jesus recounted the distinctive features of His
ministry:
Go back
and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame
walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and
the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall
away on account of me. (Matt. 11:4–6; see also Luke 7:22)
Jesus’
works of healing and teaching are meant to serve as positive evidence of His
messianic identity, because they fulfill the messianic predictions of the
Hebrew Scriptures. …. What Jesus claimed is this:
1. If one
does certain kinds of actions (the acts cited above), then one is the Messiah.
2. I am
doing those kinds of actions.
3.
Therefore, I am the Messiah.
This
logical sequence is called a modus
ponens (way of affirmation) form of argument and it is a handy tool
of thought: If P, then Q; P, therefore, Q. The argument appeals to empirical
claims — Jesus’ mighty works — as its factual basis. The acts Jesus cited point
out His crucial apologetic credentials as the Messiah, “the one who was to
come.”
On another
occasion, Jesus again healed on the Sabbath and the religious leaders again
challenged Him for breaking the sacred day by working. He responded, “My Father
is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” Jesus’
disputants viewed His statement as blasphemy because “not only was he breaking
the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal
with God” (John 5:17–18). Ancient Jews sometimes referred to God as Father, but
not with the possessive “my Father” since they thought this suggested too close
of a relationship between the Creator and the creature.
Instead of
denying this conclusion, Jesus made six other statements that reinforce their
conclusion that He was, in fact, “making himself equal with God:”
1. He acts
in the same manner as the Father by giving life to the dead (John 5:19–21).
2. He
judges as a representative of the Father and with His authority (5:22, 27).
3. If He
is not honored, God the Father is not honored (5:23).
4. The one
who believes in Jesus believes also in God (5:24–25).
5. Like
God (see Deut. 30:19–20), He has life in Himself (5:26).
6. He is
in complete agreement with the Father, whom He perfectly pleased — a claim no
Jew in the Hebrew Scriptures ever made (5:30).
Jesus,
however, did not leave the matter only with His assertions. He moved to
apologetics by appealing to evidence to which His hearers would have had
access:
1. John
the Baptist, a respected prophet, testified to Jesus’ identity (John 5:31–35).
2. Jesus’
miraculous works also testified to His identity (5:36).
3. The
Father testified to Jesus’ identity (5:37).
4. The
Scriptures likewise testified to His identity (5:39).
5. Moses
testified to who Jesus is (5:46).
Jesus
reasoned with His intellectual opponents and did not shrink from issuing
evidence for His claims. …. He did not simply make statements, threaten
punishments to those who disagreed, or attack His adversaries as unspiritual.
He highly
valued argument and evidence.
Christian
apologetics marshals many kinds of evidence in the rational defense of
Christian truth. We need not believe the gospel through blind faith. In denying
these facts, however, Robert Millet, formerly dean of religious education at
Brigham Young University, has defended Mormon claims, despite their admitted
lack of evidence, by saying that “Christian faith is dependent upon acceptance
of a divine miracle that took place on Easter morning, for which there is no
evidence.” …. He argues, therefore, if Christian belief in the
Resurrection is without evidence, but is acceptable, then the Mormon “leap of
faith” is justified, too.
This is an
a fortiori argument;
but it is false that there is no evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus’
teaching, as well as the history of apologetics, argues against this kind of
fideism (faith against or without objective evidence) that Millet wrongly
associates with Christianity and rightly associates with Mormonism. The apostle
Paul himself cited the many witnesses who saw the resurrected Christ, some of
whom were still living at the time he wrote (1 Cor. 15:5–8).
Contemporary
philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has written widely on the
historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. He also publicly debates those who
deny this truth.
The
evidence includes the general historical reliability of the Gospels, as well as
the specific and well-attested individual facts of the empty tomb, the many
appearances of Jesus to various people at different times, and the apostles’
proclamation of the Resurrection despite the fact that it went against what
they themselves had expected of the Messiah.
Other
explanations for belief in the Resurrection, such as it being a hallucination
or a myth created later, simply do not fit the facts. …. Since belief in Jesus’
resurrection should be, and is, based on historical evidence, Millet’s argument
that key Mormon doctrines require no evidence is refuted. ….
JESUS’ USE
OF REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
ARGUMENTS
Philosophers
and other debaters use reductio
ad absurdum arguments. The term means “reduction to absurdity.”
When successful, they are a powerful refutation of an illogical position. The
argument takes one or more ideas and demonstrates that they lead to an absurd
or contradictory conclusion. This proves that the original ideas must be false.
For such an argument to work, the logical relationship between the terms must
hold and the supposed absurdity must truly be absurd. Consider Jesus’
apologetic use of reductio ad
absurdum in defending His identity as the Messiah.
Jesus
asked the Pharisees, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” The
reply was, “The son of David.” Jesus responded, “How is it then that David,
speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, ‘The Lord said to my
Lord: Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.’” By
quoting Psalm 110:1, Jesus appealed to a source that the Pharisees accepted. He
concluded with the question: “If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his
son?” which, as Matthew recorded, silenced the audience (see Matt. 22:41–46).
The
argument can be stated as follows:
1. If the
Christ is merely the human descendent [sic] of David, David could not have
called him “Lord.”
2. David
did call the Christ “Lord” in Psalm 110:1.
3. To
believe Christ was David’s Lord and merely his human descendent (who could not
be his Lord) is absurd.
4. Christ,
therefore, is not merely the human descendent of David.
Jesus’
point was not to deny the Christ’s ancestral connection to David, since Jesus
Himself is called “the Son of David” in the Gospels (Matt. 1:1), and Jesus
accepted the title without objection (Matt. 20:30–31). Jesus rather showed that
the Christ is not merely
the Son of David. Christ is also Lord and was so at the time of David. By using
this reductio ad absurdum
argument, Jesus expanded His audience’s understanding of who the Christ is and
that He himself is the Christ. ….
Jesus
employed another reductio ad
absurdum when the Pharisees attempted to discredit His reputation
as an exorcist by charging Him with driving out demons by the agency of
Beelzebub, the prince of demons. In other words, Jesus’ reputation as a holy
wonderworker was undeserved. What seemed to be godly miracles really issued
from a demonic being. In response to this charge, Jesus took their premise and
derived an absurdity:
Every
kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household
divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided
against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by
Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? (Matt. 12:25–27)
We can put
it this way, step-by-step:
1. If
Satan were divided against himself, his kingdom would be ruined.
2. Satan’s
kingdom, however, is not ruined (since demonic activity continues). To think
otherwise is absurd.
3.
Therefore, (a) Satan does not drive out Satan.
4.
Therefore, (b) Jesus cannot free people from Satan by satanic power.
The
Pharisees also practiced exorcism, moreover, and if Jesus cast out demons by
Satan, then the Pharisees must grant that they too might be driving out demons
by Satan (Matt. 12:27). The Pharisees themselves, however, must reject this
accusation as absurd. Jesus, therefore, cannot be accused of exercising satanic
power through His exorcisms. Jesus marshaled two powerful reductio arguments in just a
few sentences.
Reductio
ad absurdum arguments are
powerful tools for defending Christian truth. Those who claim that morality is
entirely relative to the individual think this view defends tolerance, avoids
dogmatism, and is preferable to the Christian belief in moral absolutes. The
statement, however, that (1) “all morality is relative” logically implies that
(2) anyone’s belief is right if it is right for them and that there is no
higher standard to which one is accountable. Relativism, however, leads to many
absurd conclusions such as: (3) Osama bin Laden’s morality is right for him, so
we should not judge it, and (4) Nazi morality is right for the Nazis,
therefore, we should not judge it. In other words, moral relativism is reduced
to moral nihilism, but moral nihilism is absurd and is, therefore, false. By
contrast, Christian morality is far more compelling.
PUTTING ON
THE MIND OF CHRIST
This brief
article does not do justice to the wealth of Jesus’ philosophical and
apologetic arguments across a wide variety of important issues. Our sampling of
Jesus’ reasoning, however, brings into serious question the indictment that
Jesus praised uncritical faith over rational arguments and that He had no truck
with logical consistency. On the contrary, Jesus never demeaned the proper and
rigorous functioning of our God-given minds. His teaching appealed to the whole
person: the imagination (parables), the will, and reasoning abilities.
For all
their honesty in reporting the foibles of the disciples, the Gospel writers
never narrated a situation in which Jesus was intellectually stymied or
bettered in an argument; neither did Jesus ever encourage an irrational or
ill-informed faith on the part of His disciples. With Jesus as our example and
Lord, the Holy Scriptures as our foundation (2 Tim. 3:15–17), and the Holy
Spirit as our Teacher (John 16:12–15), we should gladly take up the biblical
challenge to outthink the world for Christ and His kingdom (2 Cor. 10:3–5).
For more articles relevant to this vital
subject, see e.g. my:
Philosophy
of Jesus Christ
(1) Philosophy of Jesus
Christ
Philosophy
of Jesus Christ. Part Two: Towards a Philosophy that is Christ-shaped
(3) Philosophy of Jesus
Christ. Part Two: Towards a Philosophy that is Christ-shaped
To
philosophise in Mary